Very touching letter. I can undertand the rancor that one may feel because it is perceived that President Bush does not have a heart when it comes to our folks in uniform. Yet, there is another side to the story that should not be overlooked.

I once read a story about Robert E. Lee. He loved the army. He spent 30 years in the U.S. Army and another 4 in the C.S. Army. In a conversation with another general officer, he remarked that they loved the army and the men under them, but that when the time comes in order to avoid useless bloodshed later on, the good general must be willing to order the thing he loves so much, to their deaths. Lee's opponent Grant was pretty much the same way. This was of course our uncivil Civil War. The stakes were pretty high then but what about now?

Are the stakes that high? Apparently not because so many people oppose the Iraqi war (including myself). We see ANY soldier's death as a waste because we do not support the war. But we also have a conundrum because we want to support the troops. To win and get out we must commit our troops to battle. Therefore is the death of any soldier acceptable if you know it is bring you closer to the end of the war.

I am one who tends to muse and ruminate about things. Several years ago, I had the good fortune to live in Virginia. I visited Appomattox C.H. regularly, very nearly like a pilgrimage. There is a tiny cemetery there with the LAST 18 soldiers killed in the Civil War in the Eastern theatre. I looked at the stones some were unknown and some listed the states and regiments from which they came. They all died on April 9, 1865, the day Lee surrendered. Were their deaths in vain? Did their deaths contribute to the victory?

Tough questions, but I think Bush is a human being with feelings. I doubt seriously if he intentionally sends somebody to their death with a cold heart. Thats for the Generals to do when they need to take the field.

GW Bush didn't feel it necessary to give a damn about his country when it was his turn to serve. He had 'more important' things to do. What about the people who did serve--the ones who went to Nam despite that being an unpopular war also? Why have the people who are waging this war from Washington not been among the ones who served their country when it was 'their turn'?

The people who wanted this war were nowhere to be found when the military needed them--whether one felt that war was just or not.

Now we are in another unjust war. Again, the people waging it are ones who managed to wiggle their way out of military duty.

Our war mongering government had this war planned long before the election of 2000. PNAC had it all set--we were going to attack Iraq to set up bases with which we could attack other countries. All we needed was 'another Pearl Harbor'.

Isn't it convenient that that happened--that a selected president who had low ratings suddenly became a hero and his ratings shot up. Isn't it interesting that this selected 'leader' has spent his time warring against the poor, the young, the old, the disabled, veterans, the entire social network that had taken years to set up? Isn't it interesting that he gave huge tax breaks to his buddies, the obscenely rich, while stiffing the military? Isn't it ing that he has waged war on our environment, leaving more pollution and it's related sicknesses to the next generation?

It is sad that anyone had to die in this criminal war we are waging. It isn't only our own who are wounded--some will never recover, but few poeple mention the innocent Iraqis who have had what little they did have taken away from them.

We have killed massive numbers of innocents. We have driven tanks through their holy areas, we have allowed looting of their museums, we have tortured and are still torturing.

Can you give me ANY reason this 'should be' acceptable?

Meanwhile, we are building more and more terrorists who hate us. I can't see any reason why they would not.

Dori all your points are well taken, in fact, I agree with all your positions save one. I will probably disagree with it until the end of my days. Whether or not GW served in the Guard and not on the front lines is irrelevant. He is the commander in chief and has the authority to do what he did. Congress didn't stop him.

Taking it a step further, are you suggesting that only flag officers of superior and liberal intellect be allowed to run for president? Should an amendment be passed that bars any former military man enlisted or officer from running for president?

Its the character of the service that counts, not whether or not thay saw combat. Kerry only saw combat for 4 months before he left leaving his crew behind him. What about all the peace time vets, what about all the vets who saw service during the Nam era but were fortunate enough not to have gone there. Would their candidacy for president or ability to make presidential decisions be compromised because they don't have a couple of combat V's on their chest?

I served 4 years in the Coast Guard from 1967-71. Would you say that if I were president I don't have the right to send young men into combat? If that is the case neither did Clinton.

And would all of this had made ANY difference if the country had been 4 square behind the Iraq war effort?

Paid his way into a unit that would see no service. Learned to fly plane and never flew after that. On drugs while in his unit. Refused to take drug test and deserted.

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree then .I see no difference between Kerry's service and Bush's. They both have disturbing pieces of their military career that are difficult to verify (Just ask Dan Rather). They both have honorable discharges. they're both BS artists.

If the war was popular with the American public, we wouldn't even be talking about this. But since its not we must find fault with the alleged architect of the war. .............And don't forget if Bush fell for the false intelligence; so did congress, because they authorized him to go in. So what say you about every senator and representative who voted for Bush to go in?

Personally, I used to defend these guys to the hilt, but Catherine has infected me . Now I will ask, why didn't Congress have the cojones to vote no, if they really felt that the war was wrong or unneccessary. Personally, I agreed with the President going to war against Afghanistan. However, I have never agreed with the Iraq debacle.

By the same token, I want us to extricate ourselves in a manner that will show our allies that we still have some backbone and resolve. Unless of course we wish to return to the isolationist days of Wilson and later on Roosevelt.

I see no difference between Kerry's service and Bush's. They both have disturbing pieces of their military career that are difficult to verify (Just ask Dan Rather). They both have honorable discharges.

I see much difference between partying and deserting, and serving one's full term in the service. As for the Dan Rather business, notice how the blather about where those documents came from distracted totally from what was said? There was a secretary that backed up the 'findings' in those documents despite their not being from the 'right' typewriter.

Isn't what happened more important than the typewriter? It was effectively buried though, and people now say--look at Dan Rather......

Quote:

don't forget if Bush fell for the false intelligence; so did congress

But it wasn't the same 'intelligence'. The PNACers were making their intelligence that was to be presented to the outside world up to sell their project. To put it bluntly, they lied!

And am I disappointed in Congress? You bet! Before that vote, I called my Senators every day, I emailed, faxed, snailmailed, I contacted other people to have them get in touch with our Senators.

When the vote came through, I made one more phone call--saying, I will NOT FORGET! The Senate voted to give their power over to the president and that is not how our government is supposed to work.

You may have noticed, our governemnt is not working for anyone but the very few at the top.

Quote:

Personally, I agreed with the President going to war against Afghanistan. However, I have never agreed with the Iraq debacle.

Grudgingly agree. I don't think we had to go to war with Afghanistan, we would have done a better job going in as a special forces assignment. But once we did go in, we didn't do the job we were supposed to. Instead we diverted those forces to Iraq--the place PNAC had picked years ago to start their war against the world, the century long war.

There is so much more to this.

Quote:

By the same token, I want us to extricate ourselves in a manner that will show our allies that we still have some backbone and resolve.

Dori, during the week after 9-11, I jotted down some thoughts about how best to go after the culprits who flew their planes into the towers. I predicted then that the American people had no stomach for war. In my little diary I wrote that Black ops was the only way to go. We should send in assassination teams, etc. because it would not be on the guilty conscience of every American. It appears that you and I may agree with each other more than you think.

I don't see the benefit from wounding and killing people who had nothing to do with that attack. I don't see the benefit from destroying their homeland any more than I understand destroying OUR homeland would be a way to convince us of how right THEY are and wrong we are.

Only the guilty deserve to be punished, and that is not how we have approached this situation.

Jesus said: "By there fruits you shall know them." Who would know the hearts of the neo-cons? The Administration's new budget proposal cuts (published yesterday) vetran's benefits (not a cut in budget increase but real downward cuts in current spending) along with just about every other domesic program (cuts totaling over $157 billion) helping the poor and disabled.

Yet we've got a majority of discretionary funding going to DOD (really should be called the Department of Offence) at $419 billion plus $81 billion for Iraq (where we are creating more disabled and poor veterans). Add, Homeland Security (really should be called the Department of Defense) at $34 billion, Department of Energy (nukes) at $23 billion, Justice at $19 billion, Judicial at $6 billion... So we have a Federal discretionary budget for the military/industrial/prison complex approaching $600 billion out of a total of $922 billion in discretionary spending fo FY2005/2006.

Remeber, we have the highest incarceration rate, per capita, in the World while our infant mortality rate has now sunk below that of Cuba at No. 23;
This with approximately 43 million Americans without health care while the Administration, in the same proposal, wants to make permanent, tax cuts for the rich.

Budgets don't lie. They reflect the real priorities of their drafters. How can anyone say that this budget proposal is not cold blooded. There is no defense. The Republican Party and the Neo-Cons control all three branches of the Federal Government and their fruits are to be seen by all.

How many Neo-Cons in the Administration have ever seen combat? How many have or have had, a son or daughter in Iraq? You can count them on one hand but not the billions for their defense and prison contractor friends!

_________________If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess freedom and yet deprecate agitation, want crops without plowing and rain without thunder. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will. - Frederick Douglass